| Logistics |
Provides sexual health care under one roof |
|
Lack of clarity about who should provide care and what levels of care should be providedDifferent ways of collecting data and monitoring |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Public health |
Evidence of reduction in defaulting after referral to second serviceOpportunity to screen for other health problemsHealth issues are commonly related and some users may be unaware of the need for the alternative service |
|
If target population for each service is different then utilisation is not increasedContraceptive clients are not at disproportionate risk of HIV/STIsCentralisation of services can reduce access and increase delays |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User |
Many consumers appreciate advantages of OSSMove towards a “holistic” philosophy of care which is more sympathetic to real lifeProvides continuity of careReferral to a second service reduced |
|
Reduced service in both areasEvidence of reduced information given to clientsSome users prefer separate specialist services which offers more choiceIncreased stigma associated with GUM speciality |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Staff |
Potential to increase staff job satisfaction due to extended roleImprove career opportunitiesProviders are less likely to work in isolation—a more team approachGreater management flexibility |
|
Staff lose specialist skillsResults in overloading of staffContradictory service cultures makes working together challengingStaff may prefer different employment conditions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Cost |
Avoid duplication of servicesReduced client/provider contactsOpportunity for cost sharingBoth client groups have similar needs |
|
Costs increase if service offered is comprehensiveReduction in specified funding for services—eg, satellite contraceptive services |
|
|
|
|
|
|
